Hi, PB- I had to listen to this a few times before figuring out what was going on. I think relativism was made into a straw man here, as it if is incapable of using normative vocabulary, and consisting purely of neutral statements of what the ambient moral code is.http://philosophybites.com/2011/10/paul ... ivism.html

Ya, but what's *your* opinion? It's easy to regurgitate a whole bunch of quotes, but you haven't demonstrated an ability to synthesize Boghossian into a coherent critical opinion.

Even I can see that, I've only taken two undergrad philosophy classes! I guess my school was just better than yours...

H.

_________________"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir

Boghossian has no understanding whatsoever of anti-realism and his arguments are totally irrelevant to that point of view.

The entire book is essentially a straw man argument

I am not the only one to think so either- that seems to be the general criticism of his position.

See the above? Now, take that and sqaure it with this:

Quote:

But now that you brought it up, look at page 9 of the linked article, section 6.

Explain what you quoted in your own words, demonstrating that Boghossian has no underunderstanding, of anti-realism, and that his points are totally irrelevant, and the entire book is a strawman, from that citation.

I know it can't be done, but I want to see how you actually read a philosophical text.

Hi everybody, I recently discovered this board, and wanted to say that I really appreciate the community of posters here.

As an initial offering of sorts, just a way of saying "howdy," I thought I would try to have my first post be a contribution to this thread. This quote isn't quite as much of a howler as some of the earlier ones, but it did make me stop and go wha?

Brant Gardner wrote:

I agree that the association of Palenque with the Nephites goes back to Joseph Smith, [and] yes, there is a very long tradition of associating Palenque with the Book of Mormon...

So, the next question is why the issue of Palenque matters.

I realize that throwing the pronouncements of Joseph Smith under the bus is hardly a new thing for mopologists, but Brant seems to be saying that the entire corpus of contemporary LDS "scholarship" refuses to make the connection between Palenque and the Nephites that a) Joseph Smith himself made and b) millions of TBMs (except the ones writing on FAIR) still make.

I’m sure the more headway the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes in the world, the more hangers-on there will be to ride the coattails; the more ambitious, creative and free spirits will tinker with it for their own vainglory; and the more aficionados of tread-worn philosophies and trends will reinvent themselves with a patina of Mormonism to give it a fresh, new look. Instead of breaking the mold, they will cram themselves into it, though the reasons for doing so remain the same.

I’m sure the more headway the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes in the world, the more hangers-on there will be to ride the coattails; the more ambitious, creative and free spirits will tinker with it for their own vainglory; and the more aficionados of tread-worn philosophies and trends will reinvent themselves with a patina of Mormonism to give it a fresh, new look. Instead of breaking the mold, they will cram themselves into it, though the reasons for doing so remain the same.

Also I think it is sad that once you leave the church over something you have read in the history, you miss all the new information that is rapidly coming forth. In other words you are stuck with the old information without seeking further enlightenment with all the new research going on.

The ever confused Deborah is sad that critics who leave the church because of historical evidence might not have access to all the new evidence coming forth that might be supportive of Mormonism.

_________________Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotesI peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.I avoid church religiously.This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.

Also I think it is sad that once you leave the church over something you have read in the history, you miss all the new information that is rapidly coming forth. In other words you are stuck with the old information without seeking further enlightenment with all the new research going on.

The ever confused Deborah is sad that critics who leave the church because of historical evidence might not have access to all the new evidence coming forth that might be supportive of Mormonism.

Yeah, this one is pretty sad. Especially at this point when the rising generation of people in Mormon Studies have thrown off apologia and are producing excellent and challenging scholarship. I suspect the problem here is that "history" = "old," and thus if you are interested in it you're de facto missing "the new."

More from the "I don't understand history" thread (which may be the worst MDD thread ever):

Sky wrote:

A Mormon is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – pure and simple. That is a commonly understood and permanent definition. I guess I just find it odd how certain people are so eager to identify themselves as a Mormon while rejecting most or all of the doctrines of the Church. It speaks to the power that Mormon theology holds over people, whether they believe it or not. They want it both ways. It’s like it’s become some sort of ethnicity for them or something.

If it has "become some kind of ethnicity" then it's obvious it's NOT about the "power that Mormon theology holds over people."

Anyway, that's what is most interesting about an otherwise dreary thread: the deep chagrin over people who acknowledge their own history as Mormons at the same time rejecting their membership in the contemporary church.

I wish MFBukowski would weigh in and tell Sky a few things about "understood and permanent definitions." Like their non-permanence, i.e., their historical status. For a thread ostensibly about history, no one want to admit the possibility of change.

Also, Lightbearer says, "Do I believe some rabid Anti-Mormon scum or some faithless intellectual that depends on the testimony of traitors or liars for their history or do they believe the official Church history[?]"

The ever confused Deborah is sad that critics who leave the church because of historical evidence might not have access to all the new evidence coming forth that might be supportive of Mormonism.

I don't say this lightly, however, I think she's not only a tad confused, but she's a rather malicious person.

I didn't want to say "the ever stupid" Deborah, but "malicious" applies to Deborah and a host of other people over there. It's amazing to me that the most "pure and true believers" almost always have a set of hidden claws ready to sink into someone who shows any weakness or crisis of faith. Seems the truly pious (perhaps I mean the nice people) have a bit of doubt to keep them humble, like Steuss, consig, and others.

_________________Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotesI peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.I avoid church religiously.This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.

Last edited by Bond James Bond on Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yeah, this one is pretty sad. Especially at this point when the rising generation of people in Mormon Studies have thrown off apologia and are producing excellent and challenging scholarship. I suspect the problem here is that "history" = "old," and thus if you are interested in it you're de facto missing "the new."

I fear that a lot of people don't understand that history is not usually replaced with a new version. Sure there are times when new information comes along that creates an entirely new narrative, but usually people just reinterpret existing facts or add to the narrative. A lot of the people at MAD seem to think that the "new" history they're waiting for is like a total software replacement; History 2.0 that totally replaces Mormon history 1.0 rather than expansion packs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.

Maybe someday they'll come to grips with the reality that the Mormon church's history (and North American history in regards to the B. of Mormon) is set and can't be replaced. Things will only get worse for Mormon history if science proves Joseph Smith fathered children on his polygamous wives or some other damning information comes to light.

_________________Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotesI peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.I avoid church religiously.This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.

I didn't want to say "the ever stupid" Deborah, but "malicious" applies to Deborah and a host of other people over there. It's amazing to me that the most "pure and true believers" almost always have a set of hidden claws ready to sink into someone who shows any weakness or crisis of faith. Seems the truly pious (perhaps I mean the nice people) have a bit of doubt to keep them humble, like Steuss, consig, and others.

Ironically, I think the nastiness comes from insecurity. The "nice" folks are comfortable acknowledging their doubts and struggles; the ones who are terrified that they might be wrong are those who most stridently attack the questioning or the unbelieving.

I didn't want to say "the ever stupid" Deborah, but "malicious" applies to Deborah and a host of other people over there. It's amazing to me that the most "pure and true believers" almost always have a set of hidden claws ready to sink into someone who shows any weakness or crisis of faith. Seems the truly pious (perhaps I mean the nice people) have a bit of doubt to keep them humble, like Steuss, consig, and others.

Ironically, I think the nastiness comes from insecurity. The "nice" folks are comfortable acknowledging their doubts and struggles; the ones who are terrified that they might be wrong are those who most stridently attack the questioning or the unbelieving.

+1. An attack reflex almost where if they coat themselves in a teflon style defense nothing bad can stick to them because they don't allow any ideas contrary the established dogma to even penetrate the armor. (Of course nothing good a critic might say can stick either i.e. empathy for conflicted believers).

_________________Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotesI peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.I avoid church religiously.This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.

Yeah, this one is pretty sad. Especially at this point when the rising generation of people in Mormon Studies have thrown off apologia and are producing excellent and challenging scholarship. I suspect the problem here is that "history" = "old," and thus if you are interested in it you're de facto missing "the new."

I fear that a lot of people don't understand that history is not usually replaced with a new version. Sure there are times when new information comes along that creates an entirely new narrative, but usually people just reinterpret existing facts or add to the narrative. A lot of the people at MAD seem to think that the "new" history they're waiting for is like a total software replacement; History 2.0 that totally replaces Mormon history 1.0 rather than expansion packs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.

Maybe someday they'll come to grips with the reality that the Mormon church's history (and North American history in regards to the B. of Mormon) is set and can't be replaced. Things will only get worse for Mormon history if science proves Joseph Smith fathered children on his polygamous wives or some other damning information comes to light.

Exactly. The narrative will get increasingly refined, but not entirely replaced by an "affirmation" of all truth claims.

You don’t know pain yet until you’ve been in my shoes. For someone who is a total philosophy nerd, I’ve tried several times to alert the U.N. about the crimes against humanity perpetuated over there under the banner of my beloved discipline.

I can't get over how hard critics actually have it. I mean I live my religion because of my faith and for some reason they feel the need to criticize my religion based on theoretical, often contrived, arguments. Most the time, it seems its most appropriate to just say "So?" in response. They haven't proven a whole lot in many instances. They seem to pose a possibility and then suggest because they can offer a possibility that means I should not believe. The hill they have to climb, if they really wish to climb it, is far steeper and longer than they anticipated, I think. But then, I'm the dumb one who can't think for himself, or whatever.

I can't get over how hard critics actually have it. I mean I live my religion because of my faith and for some reason they feel the need to criticize my religion based on theoretical, often contrived, arguments. Most the time, it seems its most appropriate to just say "So?" in response. They haven't proven a whole lot in many instances. They seem to pose a possibility and then suggest because they can offer a possibility that means I should not believe. The hill they have to climb, if they really wish to climb it, is far steeper and longer than they anticipated, I think. But then, I'm the dumb one who can't think for himself, or whatever.

Um....

And that is why I am on solid ground in believing that the Republican party platform is the restoration of the true politics that were practiced in the lost city of Atlantis, and which Poseidon has divinely inspired to be brought back in our modern day.